 Good evening. I'm Pat Hanlon. I'm the Vice Chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals and I've been designated as Chair for tonight's meeting. I'm calling this meeting of the Board to order. It is now 7th 31 in the evening and I ask all attendees who are not recognized to speak to please mute their connection until such time as they recognize the chair by the chair. I'd like to confirm that all members and anticipated officials are present. Members would include Christian Klein, Roger DuPont, Daniel Riccardelli, Venkate Holi, Elaine Hoffman, and Adam LeBlanc. The only town official here would be Colleen Ralston. You're here. I'm here. And we have with us tonight outside Council Paul Havarty of BPH Law. Paul? Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Tonight there's nobody appearing for anybody else because this is a deliberation session rather than a public hearing. And for that reason we will not be taking any additional information relating to the case. The only matter on our agenda is the 40B application of Housing Corporation of Arlington at Ten Sunnyside. We close the hearing on this on the 15th of August and we are beginning the first deliberation session. This open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with the Supplemental Appropriations Act signed into law on March 29, 2023, which extended until March 31, 2025, the suspension of the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Public bodies may continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location so long as they provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. For this meeting the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video conference via the Zoom application with online and telephone access as listed on the agenda posted on the town's website identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. All supporting materials that have been provided to members of this body are available on this meeting's agenda or the town's website unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. There's only one matter on our agenda tonight as I indicated before and that is the beginning of the deliberation session on 10 Sunnyside Avenue. So at the outset I'd like to review with you what I am hoping to do tonight in terms of our procedure. By now you all have and soon when we share the screen, Christian will put up on the screen a draft with lots and lots of comments and corrections and additions and even some subtractions of the opinion that was prepared by Paul Haverty in August. This will be our basic text and we'll be marking up this text over the course of this evening and probably Tuesday next week. I'd like to start with the at the beginning and then in a very nonaristitelian way skip over to the end and do so after we do the facts skip to the waivers which are a big part of what ultimately we will do and then go back and go through and go through the conditions. I'm anticipating that this will take at least the two meetings that we have scheduled. I'm hoping it's only those two meetings. I know there are some things that we're going to take a little bit of extra time to work out but I'd like to get as far tonight as we can. At this point I'd like to sort of have as a general guideline that we'll aim for about two hours. So that'll take us until 9.35 which is two hours from now. That's sort of a soft stop so we could go on a little bit after that but our you know your ability to process all this begins to decline a little bit after a couple of hours and so it would be probably worthwhile to it would be worthwhile to give ourselves to pace ourselves this time. I'm hoping that it will take no more than two more hours to do the whole thing. So at this point let me pause and if there are any questions or suggestions I'd like to hear them and if not we might be at the point where Christian should share his screen. My understanding is that all of you have or have access to have received a copy of the opinion that we'll be working with so that you can skip around in that even if Christian isn't actually showing it at the time but so that's where we'll go. So let's again let me say if there any if there any questions or anything further that I ought to explain or that you want to explain to me. I would just ask Colleen if she could make me a co-host. All right then so Christian I anticipate a time for and this will give us a chance to start at the beginning. So I'm not quite sure there's there's some interference and I'm not sure where it's coming from but if you can check the mutes that you're supposed to have then that will help. So let's begin at the beginning and we'll start with the procedural history. The first general issue here is in the very fourth line and I think that this is resolved unless someone has information to the contrary. There we for a long time have been assuming that the commercial office portion of this project was 940 square feet but on further investigation it's pretty hard to believe why we ever thought that. The plans indicate that it's actually 608 square feet and the Miss O'Connor changed an earlier draft when we on April on August 15th to 600. So you'll see there the 600 square feet is it goes in there's actually lots of other places where that comes up but unless anyone has a reason to object to 600 square feet I thought we might begin by doing that and and succeeding in solving a lot of other problems at the same time. So I'll give you a chance to look at this I mean the next change is a number four which I don't think needs any discussion but if anyone wants to raise a point about it this is your time. I think the other thing I will do is I'll go back and change business four because that's not the proper name for the district. It's automotive something I just need to look it up and I'll fix that. Right, right. Okay that sounds good. And the addition of residential uses on Michael Street and Silk Street is probably uncontroversial. On number five the we were attempting to deal there with impervious surface. The testimony that we have is was 96%. It was not so clear what the total impervious surface would be and that has been has been deleted and if that seems perfectly appropriate and it's not worth it to try to find out more about finishing the last half of that but if anyone thinks that that's a mistake please let me know. Okay the next item we have on the list is number seven and this too was going to give rise to a concern that will go through what we've raised at some other places as well. The as you all know for most of the time that we've had this the applicant has been saying that it intends to rent out the units in this building to people who have incomes not exceeding more than 60% of the AMI and that some of them would be reserved even for people who don't exceed 30% of the AMI. On August 15th the applicant said well we still intend to do that but we'd like the flexibility to go all the way up to 80% of AMI which is basically what's allowed under the general under N40B generally. So the question here is whether to accept the applicant's request that we replace or I'm not quite sure about replacing but that we include the language about going up to 80% of the AMI or whether we leave that alone. So there are two options that are set forth here. The option that that you don't actually see as an option because it's what we already have is what I would suggest we should consider. The applicant may be looking for flexibility but a statement in the introduction to this document does not give them flexibility and nor does the condition that we have when this comes up later on give them flexibility. They have the flexibility because we don't have any jurisdiction to set what the maximum amount is anyway and it seemed to me and when I thought about the request of the applicant that having gone through all of these hearings where both for us and for the public the 60% figure was a really important part of what we thought made this project and what was important about this project. The applicant may yet persuade their funding source to do something up to 80% and we won't have anything to say about it but I didn't want to sort of include the 80% figure in our permit as if we think that it's okay to switch basically from the 60% level that we've all been assuming to the 80% and it's not that the applicant wants to do the 80% they just want the flexibility to do it they still tell us that what they want is to continue with the plan that they've already had. So I would suggest that we not include the up to 80% language here and stick here and later on with Mr. Havarty's language which ultimately will strongly encourage them to stick at 60% but while recognizing that we don't have jurisdiction to compel that one way or the other. So that's the issue here and I'll leave it up to the rest of you whether that makes sense to you or whether you think that we ought to be including the 80% figure. I do have a question for Paul on this the project eligibility letter says 100% at 60% AMI are we allowed to adjust that? I wouldn't say that you're necessarily allowed to adjust it but ultimately the affordability requirements are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the subsidizing agency. I will tell you that I draft the decision for a board a couple years back where all I did was regurgitate the exact language that was in the project eligibility letter from the subsidizing agency. The developer appealed the decision for a number of different reasons but one of the things they appealed was the condition that parroted the language from the PEL and the Housing Appeals Committee overturned that language and said you can't impose that as a requirement even though that's exactly what they proposed. Even though the decision expressly seated that it was the authority of the subsidizing agency. I think that we're safe in leaving this as drafted because it simply notes what was proposed. It doesn't attempt to impose any sort of requirement upon the affordability and I think we can leave it at that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dupont. I agree with that too as long as they haven't actually proposed 80% in their hearings. I think that we're just stating what it is that they've previously said in whatever their filings were plus I think you were referring to B1 that Mr. Haverty had drafted which sort of explains the jurisdictional issue in all of this and says that even though they're saying 60% you know 60% and 100% of the units that we really don't have any say in that anyway just as Mr. Haverty had explained when he had essentially parroted the language from the project eligibility letter. So I agree leave it as is at 60% and then we deal with the issue again in B1 I believe it is down on I think the page 10 roughly. Right. Or do we leave it in the findings as 60 to 80% because they did mention in the hearing that they wanted the flexibility and then when we go to conditions we say we want them to stick with the project eligibility letter. Well my recollection of the hearing is a little different from that. They said they continue to intend to do I mean in a way it's a question is what the intent is their plan and maybe plan is better than proposal here their plan is to stick with the 60 but you know there's lots of uncertainties in life and they want the flexibility which they have in which we're not taking away from them to go up to 80%. I think condition B1 provides them all of the flexibility that they need the findings simply denotes what was in their application. Perfect. So at this point I'd rather I don't want to vote on each one is there a consensus to stick with with Mr. Haverty's language here? Okay. Okay. All right so the next the next play there's I'm not going to do this generally but I do want to say that I'm pretty sure that I'm guessing that Semiode's consult is consultants rather than consultantes. Their South American branch office is consultantes. Got it but we mostly are not going to are going to leave this up to the drafters to try to get these things thing and not waste our time on it. So the next thing is is number 10 most of this I think is uncontroversial it just I think that we started with the language from an earlier case and it turns out that in this case different agencies had consulted. I have two questions one is it's I didn't take out the inspectional services department but I don't know that they consulted they're the only ones that I don't have a record and I couldn't say for sure that they wouldn't but on the other hand there's lots of things and I wondered if anyone else was aware of the participation of ISD in any of this. I would point out that Colleen Ralston is an employee of the inspectional service. That's true that's true. All right well that's a stand that that's significant input. That's for sure. I want to emphasize the conservation commission to come up a little bit later on it explicitly declined to comment because this was not in their jurisdiction. As you all know they when they say that they must be talking about their jurisdiction under local law as well as under state law because our history with them is that when they but for 40B would have a jurisdiction over a local law thing they are not the least bit shy about providing us with comments on the application. So they really this really pretty much takes care of the wetlands issue at least from the point of view of the both the state act and the local by law and regulations. Yes please I'm going slightly backwards but on number seven that that 25% that at least first is that so it's all affordable but that 25% is the voucher program housing. Is that is that what that's indicating? Mr. Havity you want to answer that? No so the 25% is the minimum amount required to be affordable in order for it to be ineligible chapter 40B development although actually it could be 20% because they're doing it at less than well if they if they wanted it to be 20% they would have to be having them all at a minimum of 50% area median income so they couldn't do that if they're going to have some 60%. So it has to be a minimum of 25% and then we're noting that their proposal is that 100% will be restricted but we can't require that 100% be restricted as affordable because that's within the exclusive jurisdiction of the subsidizing agency. Is that okay Mr. Reddy? Daniel. Sorry sorry muted okay I understand now so theoretically I'm not saying that they would do this but theoretically this approval would could be for 25% affordable housing if if the subsidizing agency wanted it to be. Well it would require them to go with a new subsidy program because the subsidy program that they're using is going to require 100% affordable because it's low income housing tax credit it would it would literally require a reimagining of the entire project so I don't think that's in the cards here. Okay thank you for clarifying. Okay so are there any other proposed changes in number 10? So let's go on to I don't have anything more to draw to your attention until number 14 so does anyone have something that you'd like to bring up on the jurisdictional findings starting with 11? Number 14 is a rewrite which says a little more detail about the commercial uses and which includes how far away from them. Are there any questions about that one? Okay if not let's go on to number 15. Number 15 is there because in talking about the location it's helpful to talk about the various ways in which the project is particularly from a mobility point of view is is ideal for for this site and so it refers to shopping and and other things that are are quite are quite nearby. Does anyone have any comments on that one? Okay seeing none let's go on to numbers oops number 16 should be pretty uncontroversial it just says that the intersection available at Brooke and Broadway is 370 feet away does anyone have any comment on that? Yeah okay let's go on to number 17 and you can tell from all the red that number 17 is sort of more more interesting than some of the others. The the there are two aspects of of the there's well there are three paragraphs there that that this all has to do with the parking. The first is a is a general is one formulation of what the rule what the rules are and the next paragraph after that which is which I think is is partly wrong but you'll see or at least incomplete the next paragraph is provides more about what the parking requirements actually are and just to summarize them the you're supposed to have one parking space per unit is is 43 because you're providing affordable housing for all of those you get 10 discount that takes you to 39 that's what the legal requirement is the board has the ability if certain criteria are met to reduce that down to 25 percent of 39 which would be 10 basically and that is sort of basically what is included in the in the middle paragraph there. The reason why we go into it I suggest going into it in some detail is that from the very first day everybody has been getting this wrong the applicants transportation analysis was totally on another planet when it dealt with this and while Mr. Connor corrected it at our second meeting it still had been a problem all the way through and so it seemed to be worthwhile to take a little bit of extra space and to set forth what our role here is which is we have the discretion whether to provide the parking the parking reductions. The next paragraph addresses really whether whether 21 is enough is is and if you remember the applicant produced information that indicated that the rate of parking usage per unit on this one is pretty similar to the average of similarly sized projects that they operate others and put that information in the record so in doing all of that this is intended ultimately to set forth the factual basis for our the parking requirements and the possibility of a parking reduction later on so I would suggest that we go with a longer version it's more complete and and avoids the potential for inaccuracy but I leave it open to you anyone have any comments on this one if we go with the longer we would take the basically paragraphs the two paragraphs that are there correct the one that begins the applicant the second one begins the 21 spaces yes okay yes so what would what would go is the first alternative which is the first paragraph there and then the others really accept it and this would all occur as number I think is number 18 that's I don't know okay but it needs an independent number it needs a number right okay I agree with the longer version as well okay the next one the next number which who knows what that number will turn out to be but the next real number that starts several neighbors express concern is is this it's part of an effort which you'll see in some further paragraphs of more explicitly taking into account the public testimony and indicating the indicating the way in which they're being treated so number number 17 at least on my copy is talks about the general height of of the building is there any so I have one question on that and maybe mr. Klein can answer it is that at one point during the hearing I asked what what would happen if we did what was being asked is asked and that was to require four stories rather than five and there was very strong testimony that that would essentially sound the death knell for the project and I'm wondering if we should find should at least note that that for the record that was what the response was and if so whether this is the place to do that we certainly could include that would ask Paul what he thinks that's fine with me I wasn't sure if I was on mute or not but trying to keep up with the changes to me to me that was the that was the moment in which fooling around with the height of the building was essentially taken off the table because we wouldn't have been able to accomplish what the neighborhood wanted and still have a project left just a quick question about the language so make the project impractical are we commenting on the what's the term that they use in the decision uneconomical if you have a condition that makes it so that they're not going to do you know make what they need to make so I guess it's from mr. Haverty do we use the word uneconomical or whatever that term is the term economic uneconomic would that be used in in place of impractical there do you think there only could be I didn't know if it made sense only because it ties into the to the statute right ties into the standard of the standard right yeah okay we are number 18 again this is addressing some of the testimonies mr. Klein I wonder when we say several tenants I remember one but I don't remember the others there was a letter from a second I believe I see okay it is possible that it was one who was just very vocal and a lot of different formats I could take out the word several make that current um I would I would I guess I'd say that several just emphasizes that there seems to be more than one and I there can't have been more than two and miss fontano raised this quite a bit but but she was raising a lot of things like that and could we maybe say at the end at those facilities because and the reason I'm thinking about that is that actually it doesn't make sense to get into indoor air quality here it wasn't a major issue but it's ironic to raise it because this is passive house construction and it will one of the benefits of doing that is to have super high air quality for the for the tenants so it is useful to know that they're talking about other facilities that have been constructed in a different way and mr. chairman along those lines I just think it would clarify it if we said tenants of other hca properties because they're not really referring to this right they couldn't actually because it's just it's not even all on the ground but yeah it's useful to remind people of that I think I'm comfortable with that part of the reason is that the applicant had said that they wanted to strike some of the stuff about the management plan that we have in conditions and I just wanted that this sort of leads to my wanting to maintain that so I just wanted to got include this right and certainly questions were raised about the adequacy of the management and to some extent the applicant did confess that it was a hard problem so that that was a concern all right so we're ready to go back go on to wetlands um this sort of simplifies the uh this sort of simplifies the analysis of the wetlands basically this is picking up the point made earlier about the conservation commission that they have jurisdiction not only over the state where they don't have to get in order of conditions but also the local bylaw and the regulations implementing that and the conservation commission has not asserted jurisdiction with respect to that to that either it's also helpful I think though and new 20 and 21 which refer to zoning bylaw provisions that we haven't thought as much about as some others like parking for example and that this is sort of bringing into focus that we have those issues as well and that we need to make a finding in some way of their meeting the both 5.7 and 5.8 of the zoning bylaw Mr Klein do you have anything more to add to that I would just say we should probably strike 20 because 20 is already included in 21 okay so anyone else have questions or comments on any of these so while Mr Klein is is doing this part I was wondering if Mr have for Mr Haverty in what is at least for the moment 22 still where we say notwithstanding they still provided to this natural and built environment thing is there any purpose being served by that what why is it that we would care that they did that much of that was I had to do with stormwater and it wasn't really had it wasn't really focused on wetlands at all and I'm just wondering why we're mentioning it so I'm sorry Mr Chairman which this is this is 22 is what it is on this it says although located out of the jurisdictional area the Africans submitted an impact analysis on natural and built environment prepared by utile and semiotes so all it says is that they filed this piece of paper and I guess I'm not quite sure why we bothered with that I don't think it's necessary I mean it's sort of just laying the groundwork as to what has been submitted so it's just sort of pointing out that this is an issue that was at least reviewed okay so I would I would suggest I mean it just seems to me after we've done done what we've done this kind of just interrupts the flow I don't feel strongly about it but uh I'd recommend that that we take this out we don't generally put in that this or that paper was filed and it as as it made more sense with a lot of the other things that are no longer in it in the section probably you have any objection to that is that okay with you that's fine with me was there anything in that analysis that made the head any bearing I don't know what not on wetlands okay it it had a lot to do with stormwater management most most of it was devoted to stormwater management and some of it was the general kind of introductory material that every applicant puts in but it wasn't really oriented towards wetlands so I think through 23 years simple factual statements does anyone have any comment on those okay number 24 uh is earlier there was a there was a promise that later on we would talk about the proximity to um public transit and this is the paragraph that does that it's a little bit broader than the paragraph that we started with um because um it includes the Clarendon busway which also provides two stops but I think as as any of you who who spend time down there would realize uh and do realize the the 87 only runs some of the time and it's literally a four-minute walk uh not counting the time it takes to wait for the light to change at El White Brook uh to go to the Clarendon hill busway so even though it's in a foreign country called Somerville it uh it is very much a part of the transportation system one of the bus there goes to Sullivan Square somewhere near it yeah the other goes to each mirror all of them are connecting up to subway lines and so when you put it all together uh it greatly increases the transportation accessibility of the project so that's the reason for being a little broader there so anyone have any any questions comments revisions of that one okay let's let me move I carefully I just read that part and of course there's an alternative just below and that's what we used to have so it's really more or less the same thing but a little less mr. Klein maybe you would like to address number 25 certainly um um so one of the things that had come up and was also was brought up in the first definitely in the first and second hearings um and in a couple of the letters that were sent to the board with the the question about the the traffic on Sunnyside Avenue how Sunnyside Avenue gets bogged down because there's parking on both sides of the street um it's difficult to maneuver it's difficult at the end of the street trying to move on to Broadway because there's parking on both sides all the way to the end um and so I basically wanted to make sure to include this um as a finding because it was something that the that the neighbors were particularly concerned about but also um later on there is a condition um asking the applicant to uh basically petition uh the transportation advisory committee to consider putting um temporary loading zone in front of the building and also having a no parking within 20 feet of the corner so that cars can move out of the center out of the travel lane when they're making their terms is any for the comment on this one all right going once twice I think we've accepted this one all right that takes us to civil engineering so I don't know that we need to actually to discuss this one I mean through 28 is does anyone have any comments on 28? I forget who purple is uh I think that's part that's Paul but yeah because we don't have impervious because we uh the applicant is I mean this this is laying the basis in part for originally they were going to have an infiltration system and now they're not and uh they've asked for a waiver of the uh provisions of the local bylaw that in turn would require we impose the requirement to abide by the statewide manual which is what this is all about and so abandoning the infiltration has largely pulled the reason out from from under this the bylaw itself the stormwater bylaw is inapplicable unless you increase the impervious surface by a certain amount uh or have a disturbance of more than an acre but here the whole property is less than an acre and the impervious surface will actually be less under this project than it was before so the bylaw probably on its own terms doesn't apply and when we get to the waiver we'll we'll address that but this is ultimately related to that conclusion so if there's no comment I think we can probably say we're okay with that one now with respect to number 29 uh the I did review the handbook yes and so what they're proposing is within the guidelines of the handbook for an existing parcel so it's you know we're not going to say that it's best management practices or anything like that or just going to say it's in compliance with mass standards okay paul is that seem right to you yep that seems fine okay all right so we're now does solar access and shading impacts um and again mr mr climb give me want to address that one sure so everyone knows I had requested shadow studies and then there was a question about what the impact was going to be for people with existing solar arrays we finally convinced you tell them do the study and they came back with their report at the the last hearing or the second to last hearing showing that it would be a reduction of three one thousandth of a percent the annual solar energy potential for the most impacted of this existing systems so I just wanted to make sure that we included that finding here um just because we had specifically requested that information so anyone have any questions or objections to that okay let's accept it yes what that must be a link yes indeed um there you go uh so for the most impact the system I'm just wondering if that could be further clarified um because if I'm remembering correctly there is an existing system on the parcel that could that is the um that has the most potential to be impacted um does that make sense like if that's different that it could be a little clear because there could be an existing system um on a parcel and then there's another site that could be impacted more substantially in the future but I don't think that's actually the case here right um so I think it's something about the most impacted site I don't know what the right phrasing is there most impacted um existing photovoltaic system so is it miss Hoffman is the point here that is is is the point here that the that the site that is the potentially the most affected uh is only this small amount whether they have it or not or is it that I mean because what happens was supposed to turn out that the most the existing site that and existing site has uh uh has a photovoltaic system and but the one next door has a higher potential but they don't have it yet but maybe they say they want it or maybe they don't but somebody will want it uh which are we concerned about I I mean what why why I guess of my for the deeper question is why is should we care whether they have already got a photovoltaic system or not because I'm not actually I'm not under percent sure that this that that this one does but I maybe I don't remember completely um I don't care whether they have one or not I just wanted the language to be accurate to what was assessed so um so what I think I thought it was my memory of it and I'm not looking at it right now is that um they were looking at the site that they were studying was the one that had the most potential for impact so there there was no other building no other home in the area that could have a worse impact correct right so and I saw I thought the language to reflect that rather than saying system so I think so I think it's sort of the opposite for the language we know that we have now have in there the important thing is that this is the worst case basically right that's exactly for the photovoltaic array most impacted by like that so the end of silver energy for the photovoltaic array most impacted by the increased shadowing from the project that's fine okay good done thank you so much so we can accept all that now we're back to affordability and local concerns and here there are oops let me just see the paragraph 31 is a lot similar to uh what we had in what we talked about earlier and I would think that we'd want to resolve it in the same way uh we've added here uh the project eligibility letter which we discussed and that we didn't add in the other place um I think I'm happy to go either way on this but I wonder Mr. Hoverty is there a danger in referring to the product eligibility letter is there a danger in referring to the project eligibility letter because it is here when we talked about it before we you eventually also told us about another place where you just copied the project eligibility letter and got your head handed to you by hack and I was so but again so this is a finding it's not a condition right so we're not imposing any sort of requirements as part of this finding we're just parroting what was submitted to the board so there's no danger involved there great so in light of that I'm perfectly happy with it does anyone does anyone have a problem okay so let's let's accept that one and you notice that we're almost getting we're almost through with the facts number 32 so Mr. Klein why don't you address that one sure so 32 again um so I spent a lot of time rereading every single piece of correspondence the board received on this hearing um and many of them were very much in favor of the application and specifically we're very glad about the deeper level of affordability that was being offered um and so I just wanted to capture that in the findings so anyone have any comment on that okay without objection why don't we take that as accepted so I have a question so while that process is going on I have a question that I went that I just thought of as we've been working our way through uh this uh one of the major one of the things about this that sort of is lurking in the background about the project is that it really does go quite far in terms of sustainability it's going to be passive house construction it's going to have solar on the roof if I if I remember correctly it is not quite all electric but it's mostly electric with one exception that they're going to be essentially pre-wiring to turn to electric when it's possible and I was wondering whether the thought did occur to me that especially with the with these kinds of things being brought up in an adversarial way by objectors whether it would make sense someplace earlier on in the discussion of projects to have a finding of fact relating to sustainability that's along the lines that uh that I just said that is actually something that is in the impact report that that we just took out but so I raised that if that makes sense we can come back with language it would be a simple paragraph to uh to insert is anyone but me attracted by doing that mr. Allen yes mr. Dick or deli I agree I think I know I think that's a great idea to do that I did have a question though you know I think I remember from the conversation I'm not sure about the impact report but they I think they said that they were exploring passive house I couldn't remember if they committed to that or not so just just asking the question whether that was decided or if that was an option on that one it was decided although it isn't I mean we're not being have not been asked to require it and and haven't required it they we have we we do require something with the all electric part but not the passive house part but I mean the other thing is is that I mean you should realize that although they were very helpful to the town in offering testimony necessary to adopt the specialized stretch code that will apply to them anyway and they won't have a choice about passive house yes that that's a very important point I think I'm not I think it should be clear in the language that it's um it's aligned with what will be required yep maybe I'm speaking out of term but I I think I I think that their attorney at one point had argued that or maybe I'm getting this confused with the last 4db project that because this was a state process they didn't know if they needed to comply with the new specialized stretch code that was well that did come up in the other process oh that was I don't I don't remember Ms. O'Connor river okay ever saying that and I will say that that hca did testify before the select board in favor of the specialized stretch code they're they're not seeking they're not seeking uh does it get away from that and and utile also testified in favor of the stretch code so they've they've been strongly supportive it's they're not just an ordinary apartment builder who will have to follow the law I'll get I'll get some language to you for next time and and and we'll see I'll it'll be pretty pretty plain vanilla but it will just sort of announce it and I'll make clear that it's understood that that the uh I mean the town's position as is the state's position is that the specialized stretch code is the state state legislation and is binding but not everyone agrees with that okay so we have now finished the findings of fact and are ready to go to the decision on waivers and so we're headed back to the back the first two I think are unexceptional but does anyone have anything to any comments to make on either of those that I would just note on number two the applicant had said it was 20 feet it is 24 feet because it's it's a calculation based on the length of the overall length of the building and so it ends up being 14 feet plus 10 feet so it's 24 feet I this came up on August 15th I thought and I think and I thought that the applicant actually agreed with that at the time number three um the the issue with number three was filling in the blanks and you we can do that with the usable open space because they don't have anything that meets the the distribution the the 25 by 25 objective I was wondering what we still have a blank on landscape and I'm wondering whether we should just I'm wondering what we should do with that I I did add in at the end I suggested adding in as a show as shown on the approved plan so that at least that nailed it down to what to what it looks like on paper but I don't know if we're able to fill in the blanks on the landscape open space Mr Klein do you have an idea about what to do about that um I would I can take another look at their landscape plan and try to make a determination based on that as to what the percentage ought to be because they do have a buffer around the edge right two sides and so that would count towards landscaped area and then I just need to check the bylaw as to whether or not their second floor area would qualify or not right so I think if we can sort of tell ourselves that we accept the part that's in red and let Mr Klein do a little more work on filling in the blanks on the part that we haven't got yet this this could be put into the bag Mr Chair Mr the blank I was just looking at the cover sheet for the drawings that they submitted with the initial application and then that table of the zoning summary there's um there's some information there about um their open space so I'm assuming that's calculations from them because it's listed under the proposed column so they say 1500 I'm assuming square feet landscape and 2000 square feet usable open space there's a good time the 2000 usable 2000 usable and 1500 landscape okay it didn't work with that okay I I'm slightly unless this is it how is it set of question how is it possible they have 2000 square feet of usable open space it may be counting the um the open deck above the barrage that would be my guess of what they're counting and that it could be 2000 square feet it seems like a lot but anyway I I think I I mean I appreciate your recent raising that and that's something we should take a look at as as is always the case with applicants calculations on these categories they sometimes can't be taken need to be taken with a grain of salt but it may turn out to be that that's it's certainly a good place to look okay so we're going to leave this in the sort of semi-resolved situation and see if we can't work on on filling in those blanks it is possible in my view that we won't be able to fill in the blanks in a way that we're comfortable I mean in in being able to find and so we may have to think about how else to deal with them okay so we are now getting to yes yes I'm sorry who's who's who's thought to speak okay I guess that was just background all right so and the next the next is is it me all right I'll I'll talk less loudly on the next item is our two different approaches to bicycle parking and so I'll give you why don't I just give you a moment to read this and then I'll sort of set the stage and then maybe ask mr. Klein to explain the option that he prefers and and I've got somewhat different view but I'll give you a chance to look at it so really the difference in substance between these two formulations has to do with the ultimate conclusion the but the the applicant has all along previously it sought 70 spaces which by the applicant's calculation was what the by-law required of which the largest part you have to tabulate them separately between long term and short term and they have asked in on august 15th for a reduction in for us to say that they are planning to do less than that but not that much less than that so they're planning on 60 spaces instead of 66 I think and five spaces instead of six for a short term but they don't want to be committed to that they want to be committed to something less they have always been in this position in other words on the very day they filed the application at a time when they were talking about having 70 bike spaces they were asking for a waiver down to 43 so they've always had this big gap between what they say they're planning to do and what it is that they are willing to be held responsible for doing it is possible it's not too clear we didn't talk about it on august 15th and there may have been a misunderstanding but it's possible that they've asked they're asking to reduce that 43 to only 21 so we have really three main options one is we could say all right you can have it down to 21 which is a pretty big gap between 21 and and 60 something 66 we could say you were always at 43 that is what they at least in terms of their written waiver that's what they've asked for and we could say with that will keep you at 43 this is what you started with you haven't shown us any reason why it is it needs to be more flexible than that and that's still a long way from the from what it is you're saying you're planning on doing anyway and the third thing that we could do is to other than deny the waiver is to say look you say that you're going you're going to do x y and z you say you're going to put all of this in here and you and we're going to hold you to your word so we're going to wave it only only in so far as is necessary to get down to what you are stating that you're that you're willing to do the neither of these alternatives except the 20 going down to 21 the one above gives you two sub alternatives one of which sticks at 543 and the other would go to what it is they're planning to do and the one below the second one which you know covers largely the same territory only provides the option of basically going from what they originally requested as a waiver to just enough of a waiver to let them do what they say they propose to do and with that I'll call on Mr. Klein who's got a view on this and and this is this is one of those issues that we need to discuss I'll just say that there there has been a certain amount of planning on one thing and being and asking to be committed to do a lot less and in a project that is asking for drastic part parking reductions from us that we're entitled to give you know it makes a big difference at least to me whether you're talking about at least being pretty near code for the for the bicycle parking in a place that's being vaunted as a great location for bicycles and a and and then a much more modest commitment so the only other thing I want to say is the last pair last sentence and the first option needs to be their period because one of the things that they've asked for is a variation from the bicycle parking design guidelines this is what enables them to hang the bikes up and with without that waiver then the conversation about numbers is entirely idle Mr. Klein Mr. Klein you're muted there we go I know that there was an email from Mary I've been trying to find it where she sort of provided some minor corrections to the draft decision and I had thought in there was where she had indicated the two numbers were 60 and 5 which is why I had included them in mine that was under in what she was she was amending excuse me factual finding number 26 in the draft she was looking at she said change 70 to at least 60 long term and 10 to 5 short term and I've lost my place there's a concern that there may be a need for more space when the final plans are done in these areas so that was in the finding of fact and it was ultimately the reason for the reduction that she asked for was to accommodate the concern that they meet may need some more space when the plans are done so they've reduced it from there then with respect to the waiver it's a little hard because because we have it listed as two different waivers and they have the they have the but what she says in number two is number four which is this waiver possibly revise 1.5 and insert 1 which I think would be incorrect and the total parking space is required are 43 and the applicant seeks a waiver for 21 now that I think that's totally about automotive it could be it doesn't say I think I think she's confused because they in their waiver request about bicycle parking they never mentioned the word bicycle except in the very last line I don't I did actually check that and I don't believe that that's the case in their request I believe they did and the material they sent to us they didn't but I'm looking at what is section four in their revised list of waivers they the heading is bylaw section six subsection 6.1.12 and the bicycle parking design guideline so we're already in the bicycle world then she recites the all of the requirements correctly that apply to bikes and then against the applicant proposes 43 spaces the applicant seeks a waiver from the bicycle parking design guidelines so I guess the the the thing that comes in she's always been talking about the design guidelines and I suppose that that bleeds over to the numbers as well but it's clear that this is a section that in her mind is dealing with bicycles yeah I read that differently I read it as that she's misunderstanding what what number four was requesting because there's different numbers because there's short-term parking long-term parking and they each have two different factors and she doesn't address all four factors right but I will say that in the very beginning they had the same language this is not changed in the in the revision and again it's 43 and it's not 43 broken down into pieces the way you'd expect it to be so it's just a puzzlement and of course Miss O'Connor isn't here to clarify what it is she she intended there but I don't think that there's any I just have if there's if there's sentiment to be I don't necessarily believe that it's proper to interpret her request for going down to 21 but I can't exclude that either I personally would not be inclined to do that whether she was requesting it or not Mr. Allen Mr. Riccadilly I agree with you I think I think I would I would not feel comfortable doing that especially with the reduction in vehicular parking that we have on the project and you know I think that the waiver of the bicycle design guidelines gives the applicant a lot of flexibility as well in terms of how they can arrange and you know create the bike parking that we're giving them a waiver for as listed here because those those hanging bike parking spaces are really much more efficient than though the ones that are required you know right and I will say that the drawings all show this they have several drawings that show what their bicycle parking plans are and where it's all supposed to be and so forth it's quite clear that you wouldn't be able to achieve even your 43 I think but certainly what they're proposing to do without being able to rely on the waiver of the design guidelines so as between 43 and increasing it to whatever they to the whatever I just read that they actually were asking for in the memorandum where do you all stand Mr. sir Mr. Mike I'm a little torn on it because I've seen this go the other way where we had a affordable project similar to this that was recently built and you know we're walking by the site and you know most of the bike storage spaces were empty and it was a you know requirement of the city to have that many spaces so I'm just trying to find a balance as to what that number should be I know because I also agree that you know we're reducing the parking pretty significantly and also we've really touted the being right next to the the bike path so trying to find that balance but definitely I think somewhere in that 60 or 40 is probably where I would land I will say it I mean it's theoretically we can grant a waiver for what if we want I think Mr. Haveery can tell I mean if we decided well 60 was not giving them quite enough flexibility and 43 isn't supported in any way it doesn't broken down between long and short term parking we could say 50 which or say 20 less than they're proposing or any any numbers like that I mean numbers have this this capability of filling in an infinite line and so we could do that uh that it is possible for us to do that it's any particular place on that continuum that you fall is arbitrary but I suppose if it's just related to the request and it's just that they're to provide additional flexibility with that's another possibility that we haven't discussed Mr. Colling what do you think no I'm still I still sort of feel that the that that brief request that was put in to put the number one to change 1.5 to 1 and change it to 40 you know change the number to 21 really applies to the parking the the car parking and I just think it was an error on their part and because earlier on they had said they wanted the numbers to be 60 and 5 so I think it was just it's just odd if the waiver request is different than what they asked for in the finding it was however in the beginning as well yeah I mean so it was not something that's new or something that only came at that last minute I'm random yeah I just want to make sure whichever we do we're very deliberate about what the numbers should be what they're requesting and what we're giving them right at this point I think we're very clear on what the number ought to be and but we're not quite sure on exactly what they're requesting no I think we are clear on what they're was just sort of just saying of the three things that to be clear on one is what is what would be required without a waiver and I think we have that pretty clear one is what they're actually proposing to do after taking the flexibility that they feel that they need and that is the what I read from their from their paper their memorandum earlier on the one thing that isn't clear here is what they're requesting which is different from what they're proposing to do requesting is what they're willing to be held accountable to and proposing is what they aspire to and we have to and I don't know though other than saying I'm pretty sure that what they imagined all along was 43 because that at least has been there has been always there to begin with and I have always assumed that that represented a big difference between what they're responsible for and what they want to do but but on the other hand they they do say that that the reduction that they've requested in the findings of fact are there specifically to provide them the flexibility they need to deal with with uncertainty in the layout of the parking garage so I don't know I'm a little bit worried that I'm a little bit worried about overdoing it but but again I'm I have in the back of my head that we are planning on allowing them a pretty big reduction in parking although we have some justification from that apart from this well I think we do it I guess I would be comfortable if we want to go ahead you know we can assess it at 43 and then in our in our you know response to the waiver request we just need to be clear as to what we're asking for okay that makes sense Mr. Trev. Mr. Blake. Just looking back through some of the documentation we received and they actually have a slide in one of their presentations devoted to the bicycle parking and in that they show 64 long-term spaces with eight short-term spaces right so I think uh leaving it with the 60 and I believe it was five for the short-term I think fits within what they've presented to us I think you're right Mr. Blake they they originally were when they they were originally presenting the additional numbers and then and then they they're now reducing them but they're not reducing them anywhere near as drastically is as in terms of what again in terms of what they're they're proposing to do as opposed to what they wish to be held accountable for doing. Yeah and as you mentioned before the requirement to waive the design guidelines for the bicycle parking gets them to that number based on the this slide that you know they're they're saying certain ways of storing bikes gets them this many spaces and the like so you're right we would also need that waiver request for the parking guidelines. Mr. Riccardelli do you have a view? I agree with what Adam just said I think I you know we can only work off what they've asked us asked us for and and the plans that we've been shown and so far they've been proposing more bikes than this and if they're asking for a reduction you know I personally feel more comfortable with the the 60 and 5 number because it has some finding and and what they've asked for and it's still a reduction from what they they originally showed us rather than what I'm sort of interpreting is that if we go with the 43 we're sort of guessing at how that's distributed amongst the long term short term. Yeah I think that I don't I don't know of anything that is clear about that. So the people I can't see on my screen are Ms. Hoffman do you have a view? There you are. Hi sorry I think I agree with what you and Dan have been saying and I would like to hold with the 60 and 5. Mr. Hawley yeah I think if I understand it correctly so they're seeking 43 instead of 60 right is to keep that flexibility they might use to swap out any discrepancy or you know special arrangement that they have for other parking space looks like. I think that's I think it's clear that they have in mind asking for 43 because they've done that from the beginning. Yeah I could we know a little more reporting them the question or too late for that. It is ironic that on the 15th this is one one waiver that we didn't talk about at all. Right it would have been nice we didn't think of it anyway I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. Hawley. No I am right I think they're seeking 43 from what I could from what I gather. I could either way I mean 43 is not bad 21 is out of question for sure so if it's 60 or 5 long term short term or 43 up either way is okay for me I don't see a significant impact. So Mr. Klein you're an expert in counting votes and these votes have all been very thoughtful votes and not just yes or no or 43 or 60 so where do you think we are? So I believe that we are looking to the I think so there's two parts one is what the request actually is and I think we are we have sort of gotten to the point we're all in agreement that the request is for 43 bicycle parking spaces but they do not make a differentiation between short and long so working off of your language I was just changing sort of the back end of it so I'd read the total number of bicycle parking spaces required by this section would be 72 spaces 66 spaces long term and six short term the applicant proposes 43 total bicycle parking spaces the applicant also requests a waiver from the bicycle parking design guidelines and I would leave it at that they didn't ask for any additional waivers from other aspects of the zoning bylaws that relates to bicycle parking well I think that one of the reason I put that language in there actually is because I think the bicycle parking design guidelines are just guidelines and they're not actually a waiver of anything okay and the only reason why they matter is because they expound upon certain provisions of the zoning bylaw that deal with design so essentially they're like interpretative rules and if you don't if you only waive the interpretation and don't waive the underlying statute you haven't really accomplished anything okay so if we were to maintain that I think we need to be very clear about what provisions of the we're waiving because it's a big section that makes sense yeah okay so if we're okay with this portion of it then this being the or part of strike all of that then the board then we do need to come up with a better statement as to what exactly we're doing and I think waiver granted doesn't quite do it yep the question I think we can we have sort of a couple different options here so one would be we can provide them with the with the numbers that we want and we can we should if we should do that we should also provide some guidance as to what parts of this the you know that was it 6-1-10 or 6-1-12 or whatever that section is 6-1-12 that we are willing to to waive great right so what I would propose doing at this point is leaving it at that we'll go we'll finish off we'll go back into 6-1-1-12 and and specify that that isn't very difficult and so we'll have language I guess that I do think that we that if we give them a if we did give them a waiver of 43 I think that if they haven't asked how it's distributed we need to because it makes a difference whether it's long and short term and I don't know how you would interpret 43 when the statute breaks it down that way and and then let's sleep on it and you know come to a conclusion and come to a conclusion next Tuesday okay this is actually probably the hardest thing so far Mr. Chairman Mr. Dupont I didn't ask you what you thought because you weren't all right because I was just sort of ticking along with Adam and Dan and then Venkat I just tended to think that you know they what they said or what they had on their plan which was I believe what was it 66 and 5 or whatever those numbers were I mean that's really all we know except for the fact that they're saying 43 but it's undifferentiated and your comment earlier was we could put in any number we wanted and and what I was curious about though is just in terms of formatting if we say you know that they're requesting 43 and then we have to somehow expand on that by saying well that's going to be divided into x number of long term and y number of short term are we actually granting the waiver or are we denying the waiver and imposing some other a condition I'm just not clear what our actual you know what what the format is if we say no to what you've asked because you haven't given us enough information and we're supplying you with information I just didn't know if that provides some additional problem for us from a drastic interesting thing it's a little bit it's a little bit different from saying granted to the extent that right because because you're dealing with apples and oranges here because they're asking for a single total a combined total when all when we're thinking about having it separated out you know you could probably give them less than they ask for as long as it's on the same scale I'm not sure what happens when you within you take an additional step there mr. Havity if I've now uh filibustered long enough for you to have some thoughts on this I wonder if you could comment on on mr. Dupont's observation your authority is really anywhere from what the bylaw requires all the way down to zero and it doesn't have to be specifically what the applicant requested you can grant even more leeway if you want you can grant less the end of the day the only really deciding question is whether or not they can construct their development as proposed if you don't grant this waiver so if they don't have enough space to do the number of bicycle parking spaces that you are proposing to require that's going to lead to an appeal and claim that your decision has rendered the the project uneconomic so that's really your only limiting factor if you feel that there's sufficient amount of room for them to do the number of bicycle parking spaces that you are requiring with whatever you know leeway on the bylaws in terms of the design standards that you grant you can pretty much do whatever you want thank you welcome all right so I still think thinking about it and getting a combined you know mr. Klein has already sort of put things together about that and the key thing I think I think we're okay really with with the language of four describing what the problem is and now we have to just describe what we can do for the short term phase space and I'm not a hundred percent some of us I think really would like to go towards the 60 and some of us feel antsy about that and might want to stick to the 43 in order to avoid inadvertently making the project uneconomic if things break wrong and some of us feel both ways at the same time so I suggest why don't we work out a couple of alternatives for the waiver granted language and and just go up or down on on something next week okay so if that's our if that's acceptable to you that can be a reserve point and we get to number five and number five is the is the is the parking waiver and the options that are here are twofold one is to say it's denied is unnecessary because we're accessing our we're exercising our authority to reduce the number of spaces and to do that we have to say that there's a sufficient number of parking spaces and we also have to say there's a TDM plan we have required a TDM plan and or we will have required a TDM plan maybe even a more than one location but the TDM plan is sort of a special purpose thing because many of the things that are listed in this the bylaw as things that we should be considering are things that the applicant can't do and some of the things that they are willing to do are not listed so there's a catch all there and there's a good argument that we are capable we have the authority to but we don't have a TDM plan we're only asking making them make one up and get it approved by the senior transportation manager so I would say that it's not like 100 sure that the reduction here is strictly in in compliance with the statute so one way of doing it is to say do the same thing as will be asked to do with respect to the stormwater bylaw and to say that it's unnecessary and we're exercising our authority to reduce the number of parking spaces to 21 and that's a possibility the second possibility is to say that the board believes it would be sufficient and the TDM plan is also sufficient and we exercise a discretion to allow the reduction and to the extent to which it might be thought in effective the waiver is granted so the first one basically just is exercising our authority and that's it the second one is exercising our authority but granting the waiver just in case and Mr. Klein I wonder if you have a view on any of this just climb your microphones off thank you you know we are allowed to reduce the amount with with a TDM in place but we don't have a TDM and they haven't really talked about one per se so I think sort of the alternative that you provide just the one in red um is a little makes a little bit more sense um you know because we are allowed to make the reduction we don't have a TDM but we find in this case we don't you know we can we can do what we we can just grant the waiver does anyone else have a view I agree with that if if it's a prerequisite for the waiver denied to actually have a TDM plan and we don't have it it seems to me that the alternative at least deals with that fact if if I understand uh Christian's comment yep so if I do I favor that approach the alternative okay so anyone else wish to address this one okay so I think right now uh so far the alternative has it so going if anyone dissents with that please let let me know and we continue talking about it otherwise we can put this one to bed you know our ability to reduce the parking through TDM requires them to adopt at least three different uh components and most of them they're not allowed to provide by their uh funding mechanism so I think we we may be in a position where we really only can grant the waiver right okay well I think that we I think that that seems sound and why don't we say that we'll that's where we are yeah and uh go on to the next they get easier after this um the next one is has to do with the uh parking spaces and the only question I have there the numbers are a little bit dodgy I think on this one but I have a feeling that the insert on the third line down 60 percent or 21 spaces is probably meant to say 60 percent of 21 spaces which isn't perfect but it's a lot closer to the 11 that they're asking for than than uh whatever 60 of x that comes out to 21 is there I didn't write that part actually is that Mr. Havity was that your intent or which one is this this is in number six the third line down the applicant request a waiver to allow 60 percent or 21 spaces and so on and I I think that in their actual request they specify that what they're asking for is 11 am I right about that I have to go back and look at that Mr. Chairman no it doesn't it doesn't say it says to permit more than 20 percent of the spaces to be sized by compact car but I'm pretty sure that at some point they say they want 11 spaces to to be compact spaces does anyone remember that differently unfortunately I can't find that sort of statement from Mary where she sort of outlines what she's looking for for final changes let me see if I can I can find that I have it sort of sitting out let's see if I can that probably is where my 11 came up all right so this is waiver number six yeah and what she says there is the applicant seeks 11 compact spaces or 60 percent okay so I think it would be the easiest thing to do and the clearest thing to do is just grant her 11 and then not worry about what it's 60 percent of yeah not not a complicated complicated anything but it's 21 spaces total right so 60 percent would be like 13 right okay yeah I'm aware of that when I said that the arithmetic was the numbers will dodgy and I did actually some manipulation and and could not find any number that was related to 60 percent that would have any meaning in this case at all so it's it's just rounding error okay but the proposal in any event is whatever they're asking for is to grant it and I think that that we probably are willing to do that is there anybody who would object to that no okay so the next waiver is number seven and this is the to reduce the um the aisle size um and I'm not sure I don't think that there that is there hasn't been any discussion of that does anybody have any objection to that one did her most recent request further reduce that to 21 um that would refer to the memo right yeah um number seven yes they did it is they do have 21 22 should be 21 let's say 21 feet I'm getting a little concerned that's just how much maneuvering space they really have now ask yeah other members of the board what they think about the the number of 21 I I agree with you Mr. Clyde but 22 is fairly standard I mean it's always required to be 24 in most jurisdictions but 22 you see around 21 does does feel kind of tight for for 90 degree parking spaces but it's on the what do they have in their plans if you were looking back at the drawings it was originally 23 I thought and I had written down here 22 and until the memo uh that's where I thought they were on the until uh Mr. Connor's memo of the 15th I'll check through the drawings right now and just see what that you know our decision here does have some bearing on the bike parking as well because the more the more constricted this is the harder it is to for them to balance everything which I think is part of the reason why you're seeing a certain degree of angst on their part they've got only a little bit of space and they've got to meet a lot of goals for that space Mr. Chair it looks like um based on the drawings I'm seeing they're saying 23 feet I do recall I think it was at the last meeting where they did request for that to be reduced kind of verbally yeah all right does anyone remember what I it sounded more what it sounded a lot like was that they were redesigning the that lower floor and we're just looking for you know sort of some some blanket room to move and maneuver things and I didn't have a specific request in terms of you know there's this situation we ran into we really need to have 21 feet right well I don't I break as you all know I don't have the expertise one way or the other on knowing what is or isn't an appropriate thing here um but I am somewhat concerned that as you get smaller as as you get smaller and smaller you develop a safety problem that we wouldn't want to do so it's like if I'm right about that then it's not sort of cost-free to keep going down I don't have any problem with 22 and I don't have the sense that anybody else does I do have a note in my notes from our 8-1 meeting that says 22 foot minimum on drive isle width that helps yeah it kept going down right it was started at 23 and then it was 22 and then it's 21 so I guess the I should start my video again the what well we have five architects on the board how bad is 21 is this I mean there's there's one thing about there's a difference between misgivings and heartburn and heartburn we won't do it and misgivings we might and I'm trying to figure out where we are in the heartburn misgivings my feeling is that if you know if it was 21 feet and it was between two eric two aisles where there were compact cars it might work um because the cars are smaller but if you had a longer vehicle 21 feet real you know you've lost three feet and you have to have one person park badly and all of a sudden you know you really can't get out anymore okay and they and they do have 11 I mean half of their spaces are compact but not all of them right so that still creates that problem yeah and then they also noted somewhere that the location of the compact cars would be determined at the final plan nothing is final right well hopefully they would they would do that in a way to make the geometrics of the parking thing work as as well as possible but right um Mr. Chair Mr. Riccadelli um you know man if I can make one suggestion um you know my only concern about the 21 is really right where you enter the parking garage because it's back to back parking where they had proposed previously you know 22 feet where it's a single aisle parking up against the back of the project um but that's not really a concern so you know I don't want to split hairs here but uh we could say where if there's back to back parking the minimum aisle width is 22 feet at at single loaded drive lanes we could give them the flexibility to go to 20 feet and that may give them a little bit more room to maneuver um because that's typically a standard that at single loaded 90 degree parking 20 feet is acceptable so what do you think about them I think that's reason that that's perfectly reasonable um I would note on the august first drawing set for the civil they do show uh 22.3 feet on the single loaded and 23 feet on the double loaded um for aisle widths so not a hundred percent sure why they're requesting it but we could say um yeah I I think what you know what Mr. Conelli said is very is very astute that you know where it's double loaded the you really want the bigger number but where it's single loaded it's not quite as bad um because you're not going to hit another person's vehicle you're just going to hit the wall so um if I would suggest Mr. Aberdeen what I would suggest is that if the plans show a minimum of 22 feet all around then the waiver should be for 22 feet if at some point they feel like they need to come in and provide the board revised plans that show a smaller width and have a new request for a waiver you can you know consider that as a modification but I don't think that you should be granting a waiver above and beyond what they're showing on their plans but that's even though they've asked specifically asked for it correct they did ask for the 21 but their plans don't show it yeah so if we indicated that they requested 21 but we say the waiver granted to allow a drive aisle of 22 feet as indicated with the approved plans right so Mr. Aberdeen if I could does this principle apply equally to the to the bike parking because the bike parking the plans show actually more than they're currently asking for I 100% agree with that the waivers should be consistent with the plans if they want to come back at some point and submit revised plans and ask for a modification certainly within their right to do so okay well that sort of has a bearing on consideration of the earlier issue yeah and I can take a I can take a pass at that for next time I guess we also need to make sure I mean I I certainly have looked at plans which said what they had they have lots of bike plans that they had specifically and so forth I'm I do we do need to make sure that if we I'm not a hundred percent sure that the plans that we've looked at are listed in the approved plans in a two so we probably we might want to make sure that we're looking at something that really has planned on it and it's not just a exhibit for our benefit but but that that just means kind of looking back at where looking at the things that we know are plans and seeing what's what's illustrated there all right so we're now at number eight are we is it eight yes number eight okay so Mr. Havity why don't you explain this one okay so as I read this provision of the bylaws it was applicable to parking and loading areas which are not inside a structure and my understanding was that the parking for this development is inside a garage so I don't think it would be applicable and therefore not necessary everybody agree with them okay so sense of that it of that section of the bylaws all parking and loading areas containing over five spaces which are not inside a structure right right very clearly not applicable so all right so then let's get to number nine and this is similar to to that Mr. Mr. Havity yeah so this this section applies to buffers in any industrial or business district that abut certain buildable residential lots and I don't believe this abuts any buildable residential lots so I don't believe that this provision is applicable either yeah I think I did look at the zoning map and all of the lots that are at least immediately adjacent to this plus the lot across the street are either b2 b2a or b4 it might be useful though I wonder it might be useful to include language in the request the description of the sections to include the buildable residential lot point in it because now the reason why it is we don't think it's applicable is not apparent from the reading of of the description of the section or is that does that make sense now I think it's only a that's like that but b just refers to a different to the section that start within hate if I'm not mistaken so we would change that to waiver denied is not applicable to the project comma as the property does not abut any buildable residential lots okay I was thinking of putting the buildable residential lots in the text but either one works fine okay the next one up is waiver 10 for fees Mr. Klein do you want to explain this one so the applicant requested a waiver from all fees which is something the town had done on their project on Westminster Avenue so we had Pat and I had approached the town manager and department heads asking if they would be willing to do the same thing here and they had agreed and the way the board action listed here is I believe the text is directly from the town manager's letter yes it isn't a it isn't a complete clip because of moving clauses around but all the main language is often there does anyone have any difficulty with granting these waivers all right so let's let's go on to 11 11 is the stormwater bylaw excuse me the stormwater bylaw issue and again this is this is one where I'm not looking at the at the bylaws so my recollection as I mentioned earlier is that it does not apply the stormwater the town's stormwater management bylaw does not apply if unless the if you have a certain amount of increased impervious pavement and here there's less than there was before and that or that that it was more than an acre and this is a third of an acre so the applicant has requested is to say that uh what is said here on the in purple and except for the fact that there's two periods at the end of purple that seems unacceptable unexceptionable so I don't have a okay if we're okay on that one number 12 is one of the few things in all of this that hasn't changed at all does anyone propose to change that situation okay so we'll see no comments let's move on to number 13 now here it's not clear to me why it is we're dealing with both 13 and 11 since one seems a subset of the other I think mainly because that's what the applicant requested so we're simply addressing all of their waiver requests okay they not be strictly necessary if we're granting 13 but yeah well 11 11 is the broader one right because it well then there is one thing so I'm looking at I'm looking at this so 11 is the stormwater bylaw right 13 is the stormwater management rules and regulations so they have different documents yeah so you would need separate waivers okay so that's fine I mean the reason for the waiver here is that the bylaw that the rules are implementing doesn't apply okay so do we just say waiver granted or do we want to include something more similar to what we did for 11 either one's fine with me yeah I would I think that well you're the one that's fine as long as the waiver the thing that would be dangerous is to not grant the waiver and rely on our interpretation of the stormwater bylaw and then find that the town manager doesn't agree with that that would be that would be a bad result whereas if you grant the waiver you granted it you may not have needed to but you did anyway yeah okay so we're really coming down now to the very I think the very last bylaw the one that's totally new not bylaw the very last waiver and this has to do with noise abatement mr. Klein yeah so essentially this came about when we were reviewing the the draft decision we had included language that had been approved through a waiver for previous projects that would allow work to begin at 7 a.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. on Saturdays and the applicant indicated they wanted that as well so we needed to add this one more one more waiver request and they were in agreement as had been done on prior projects that we will grant them the 7 a.m. on weekdays and the 8 a.m. on Saturdays however there will be no work on Sundays and holidays in exchange for that so and they agreed to it so just putting that here in writing so is there any is anyone object to that okay we've come to the end of the waiver so it made findings are fact we've gone through the waivers the two hours that I originally said we try to do have expired and at the wish of at the risk of contradicting myself I wonder if you can take a if you are willing to take a look if we're next going to conditions and it turns out that we don't have much work to do on conditions that are sort of at the beginning and it would be nice to get one of the two of the subsections out of the way which I think we can do in just a few minutes so if we can go back to conditions a general there and leaving aside postponing until next week to deal with the august 1st 2023 which has to do with finding where those plans actually are and making sure that they're properly in the record and so that could that could mean that we'd have to undo or reduce some things we don't really have any amendments of substance until we get to I think until we get to a six is that right mr Mr Klein that's correct just cleaning up number four the six hundred square feet that's the a six is again is about the waving of these that I take it that that should be essentially I mean we have waived it so I'm not sure that there's anything really to think about yeah there isn't war yeah there is a war we can go ahead and just drop that second part okay so I don't think if there's anything else in section a I do not see anything else in section a now in section b we go back to the original discussion we had on the subsidizing agency and there's there's one potential change in b1 and otherwise we're with mr havery's language and I think that I mean this was the key condition this is the one this is the one that's a condition rather than just a finding a fact and and I think that this is what we've been pulling up for I think ultimately to me the most important thing is the last sentence which is I think a position that we really ought to take and that has been implicit in the decisions we've made up to now in the findings fact is everybody comfortable with this language something wonky with the grammar but we'll get that okay so before changes sale to rent up which probably gives you a glimpse into the archaeology of this provision right so I'm going to press my luck since it's only 21 39 it's 939 but if we look at c we don't have a whole lot there either and the first question in c is whether we ought to require a a deposit at the appropriate time of course to for purposes of peer review when you go to the when when you're doing your final plans and we have I think in the past you're 6500 I think that in one of the other cases I've suggested adding not reasonably able and available just to make it clear it is often the true that we have people with technical expertise to do the kind of review that's required here but they're already being overutilized six times over and they just they just can't so I wanted to make clear that that was a reason why it is we have to use a peer review consultant other than that there's nothing very exceptional about this paragraph that I know does anyone have any discontent with this one all right the next place where there is a proposed change I believe in is a number H there's a brief one in c because they are providing street trees I just wanted to note that when we're talking about trees that are along streets and walkways that they should be salt tolerance I just want to include the word trees in there great that's all that was so sorry there's a deletion wait a minute where H right although it's I guess now not H anymore so H the sewer permits have been changed by the with different language with respect to the to waiver and that we don't waver certain things and we do others and so in this that's is that H itself right and then J is the deletion of test pits which should be on controversial because they're not doing doing this the original H and the original I are essentially the same with a with some change in language so we're going to strike H and keep the former I which will become the new I H great is anyone having difficulty there and did anyone have an issue over those things which I whizzed on by because there were no proposed changes but you all may have had a change and suddenly you've lost your chance so if there's anything that you want to draw attention to that I don't draw attention to you should certainly feel free to stop and say wait a minute let's let's deal with this okay that takes us now to Dean yeah sorry only question that's 6500 was that for the plan review of the you know so but but that is again wave two is no no no this is this is this is for us right the top manager waived the fees but certainly the zoning board isn't going to waive them these are all things that would be done anyway that that would be done through 53 funding just as we had Mr. Mr. Reardon doing it now there's a lot of things that have been postponed to review of final plans and so there may very well be work for a peer review consultant to do at that stage to make sure the final plans are consistent with the preliminary plans but the preliminary plans give rise to a certain degree of flexibility so expert advice is apt to be needed and that's what this is about it's not part of the fee waivers that were agreed to by the the town manager you'll set up an account just like we did with Tetra Tech and you fund put funds into it and the only thing about the the the deposit is that you put it in first okay right Mr. Everdee do I have that basically right yes Mr. Chairman all right so we have now gone through A, B, and C of the conditions we did that in 12 minutes and I'm not planning on pressing my luck I think that we've done we can do D all right or maybe not if there's popular demand I'm willing to try it sure let's do D the D should be pretty easy so the only issue in D is D to part B which is where we're talking about the property management plan right and I believe the applicant requested that we strike pet policy staffing and trash removal but there were questions that were raised by residents about the trash removal policies so we wanted to make I felt it was important to maintain that and there was also questions about smoking policies so make sure that remained as well and then there was a belief it was raised like Sir Everdee I can't remember as you who had mentioned it that a copy of the plan needs to be provided to somebody at the state level as well or the property management plan it has to go to the subsidizing agency subsidizing agency yeah it was there was language that that was proposed by if I can find it by Mr. Connor and this is on what D you know what she wanted at the end was the plan shall be submitted after its approval by the executive office of housing and livability so so she has the sequence of events the other way the way around she wants to go to the state first get it approved and then provide it to the town and I don't know how that I don't know what the intent was given that this has to be prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy well they're going to be required to have this I think is part of their final approval submittal so that's going to be well in advance of certificates of occupancy so their proposed order certainly is fine okay so what they should what she says the plan shall be submitted after its approval by the executive office so that's fine okay the pad if you could just email me that I will swap it in okay we'll do we'll do all right so we did then he gets ugly so he's got lots of stuff so let's let's take a break and pick that up we we went uh seven 17 minutes over time but we got through four sections so that that seems like a help that'll make our life's lives easier next week okay so we've reached the end of this session of the deliberations we've made a considerable amount of progress we have a bit to go but it's not that much really and next week we'll come to closure on some of the issues that are outstanding from tonight work our way through the remaining issues and I hope at least be in a position to approve a final permit if not we ought to be in a position to do it very quickly in a short session but I'm hoping that we can avoid that we've gotten pretty far tonight that is is if sort of the meeting is open for any final comments or suggestions and so let me stop there if anyone has been itching to say something this would be the time to say it and otherwise the chair would entertain a motion to to continue the deliberation section to uh next Tuesday uh uh September 12th at 7 30 Mr Chairman Mr Klein so moved second second by Mr Dupont all in favor hi pose I do a roll call I have to have to do a recall even for my state law yeah all right Mr Klein hi Mr Hatt no not Mr Havardy Mr Dupont hi hi I've been here enough I'm almost avoiding you Mr Rikardelli hi Mr LeBlanc hi Mr Holy hi Ms Hoffman hi and the chair votes I and we are continued thank you thank you we tend to adjourn oh yep we do we do all right does anyone want to move to adjourn or we can break out the Miller and enjoy ourselves prematurely Mr Chairman I move we adjourn and I second Mr Chairman second by Mr Dupont um Mr Klein hi Mr Dupont hi Mr Rikardelli hi Mr LeBlanc hi Mr Holy hi Ms Hoffman hi and we are adjourned good night everybody